Examine the passages that
refer to Melchizedek and you will find that the only One it could be is
Jesus Christ Himself in His preincarnate appearances:

[Gen 14:18-19]:

(v. 18) Then Melchizedek
king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,

19 and he blessed Abram,
saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and
earth.

[Ps 110:1-4]:

PS 110:2 The LORD will
extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your
enemies.

PS 110:3 Your troops will be
willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of
the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth.

PS 110:4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order
of Melchizedek."

[Heb 5:4-10]:

HEB 5:4 No one takes this
honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was.

HEB 5:5 So Christ also did
not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to
him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. "

HEB 5:6 And he says in
another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of
Melchizedek."

HEB 5:7 During the days of
Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries
and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard
because of his reverent submission.

Heb 5:8 Although he was a
son, he learned obedience from what he suffered

Heb 5:9 and, once made
perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

Heb 5:10 and was designated
by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

[Heb 6:19-20]:

19 We have this hope as an
anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind
the curtain,

20 where Jesus, who went
before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.

[Heb 7:1-3, 9-10]:

HEB 7:1 This Melchizedek was
king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from
the defeat of the kings and blessed him,

HEB 7:2 and Abraham gave him
a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness";
then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace."

HEB 7:3 Without father
or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life,
like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

HEB 7:9 One might even say
that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham,

HEB 7:10 because when
Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

[Heb 7:11-17]:

HEB 7:11 "If
perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for
on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still
need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in
the order of Aaron?

Heb 7:12 For when there is a
change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

Heb 7:13 He of whom these
things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe
has ever served at the altar.

Heb 7:14 For it is clear
that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said
nothing about priests.

Heb 7:15 And what we have
said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,

Heb 7:16 one who has
become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on
the basis of the power of an indestructible life.

Heb 7:17 For it is declared:
'You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.' "

FOLLOWING IS A POINT
COUNTER POINT DISCUSSION ON WHETHER OR NOT MELCHIZEDEK IS A TYPE OF CHRIST
OR CHRIST HIMSELF IN A PREINCARNATE APPEARANCE TO ABRAHAM

I was
reading your article on Melchizedek and I disagreed with your conclusion
that he was Jesus Christ preincarnate. If you would patiently permit me, I
would like to explain.

According to
what I have, this view was a minority one in the early Congregation, and
most rejected it as unscriptural.

[This reasoning cannot be
accepted as it is subjective and irrelevant. The gospel itself was often a
minority view, even in the early Congregation. Reasoning must be based on
a proper interpretation of Scripture. It has not been established that the
preincarnate view was a minority one anyway. Taking what evidence we have
of early church leaders via their writings some of whom were not even
believers is not sufficient to establish a majority or minority view. In
either case it is not the majority that establishes doctrine but the
proper interpretation of the bible itself: the responsibility of each
individual to determine himself]

Those
who believed it were considered on the verge of being heretics (why I do
not know

[I am often branded a
heretic but without Scriptural basis]

Even
those who held to this view admitted that it was not the orthodox view.

[Orthodox views are more
often unscriptural than scriptural]

The early
Congregation instead believed that Melchizedek was simply a type of
Christ.

[Which does not affect the
major doctrines of the faith. But what early Congregations belived may or
not be correct. Scripture determines that. Besides that, no one really has
a handle on what early congregations believed and did not believe due to
lack of sufficient testimony as to such. So so far, if I were to take your
reasoning, I would have to abandon the gospel because it was by some
counts not the majority view of the early church]

But beyond
this, I would like to post an article from another writer.

The
serious Bible student will find that there are a

HIS
IDENTITY REVEALED: REVEALED IN GENESIS 14

ctually
four proposals to the identity of Melchizedek. The first proposal is that
Melchizedek was a theophany of the preincarnate Christ. Carver writes:
This is based on the belief that Hebrews 7:3 teaches that Melchizedek did
not have human parents, that he came to earth without fleshly ancestors,
that he possessed eternal life and a perpetual priesthood, and that he was
literally formed like unto the Son of God." According to this
proposal, it was actually the Son of God, the preincarnate Christ
appearing as a man . . . . The city of Salem" over which Melchizedek
ruled and in which he served as a perpetual priest, was actually a
spiritual city. Abraham was visited by God in the person of the Son.

The
second proposal identifies Melchizedek as a historical man who was an
actual type of Christ. According to this proposal, Melchizedek was made
similar to the son of God so that he can stand as a type of His perpetual
priesthood.

The
third proposal is that Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest who worshiped a
Canaanite god. Carver observes: This is based on the belief that the
ancient site of Jerusalem was occupied in Abrahams day by the Jebusites, a
tribe of the Canaanites. Since Melchizedek came from Salem" or
Jerusalem," he would be the ruling king and appointed priest over
that tribe.

The
fourth proposal identifies Melchizedek as Shem. This proposal gives
identity to Melchizedek historically, and reveals the source of his
priesthood and kingship. Shem would have outlived Abraham if the
genealogical records of Genesis 11 are taken as an exhaustive record of
the passage of time between the flood and the days of Abraham. If this
proposal is true, the name Melchizedek would be a title rather than an
actual name.

Of
the two proposals mentioned, two are definitely impossible: the third and
the fourth proposals. The third proposal identifying Melchizedek as a
Canaanite priest is impossible because the Jebusites were idolators who
worshiped Canaanite gods. Melchizedek could not have worshiped a heathen
god because of the titles he used for the true God. Most High God
separates the true God from the weak Canaanite gods. Possessor of heaven
and earth is used by the prophet Daniel in the fourth chapter of his book.

In
addition, archaeological records reveal that the Jebusites were preceded
by that of a Shemite group of uncertain genealogy.

The
fourth proposal identifying Melchizedek as Shem is impossible because
Abrahams birth probably came about 1,200 years after the Flood. According
to this, Shem would have been dead approximately 800 years before the
birth of Abraham. Shem himself would have to have been resurrected in
order to have been the Melchizedek of Genesis 14.

[None of the above reasoning
is acceptable because it does not present the particular passages that are
relevant and examine them in detail to see what they are saying.
Conclusions drawn are unwarranted since they are not compared to the
context and text of Scripture at all. They are in fact largely speculative
and certainly not thorough. ]

Having
observed the four proposals, it seems that there are only two possible
answers concerning the identity of Melchizedek, which are: (1) He was a
theophany of the preincarnate Christ,

or
(2) He was a historical person who typified Christ. The true answer must
be observed from the Scriptures.

It is
very difficult to find any books or publications, current or past, that
hold the view that Melchizedek was a Christophany of the preincarnate
Christ. The author has also experienced this difficulty. However, the
teaching can be traced by observing the few sources that are available.

5) in
the church held the false view that Melchizedek was the Son of God.

Bullock
further states that Ambrose was included among them.

[It is circular reasoning to
conclude that either view is false in order to determine that either is
false. You cannot conclude something is true in the process of
investigating whether or not it is true.]

Dean
Henry Alford writes concerning Jerome: Marcus Eremite (about 400), who
wrote a treatise on Melchizedek, mentions heretics who believed him to be
God the Word, before He took flesh, or was born of Mary.

However,
it can be observed from other sources that Melchizedek was regarded by the
early church to be a mere type of Christ and not a theophany. Alford
states further that Ambrose, who apparently at first held the view that
Melchizedek was a theophany, later Sexpressly states him to have been
merely a holy man, a type of Christ. This last view was ever the prevalent
one in the Church.

[Prevalence does not make
doctrine - certainly not since the gospel has always been a minority in
the church even today]

Further,
F. W. Farrar writes: The notion that Melchizedek was . . . God the Word,
previous to Incarnation, . . . Is on all sound hermeneutical principles,
not only almost but quite childish.

[Sound hermeneutical
principles actually support the preincarnate Christ as Melchisedek it will
be shown. Not a good idea to call something you disagree with childish
either]

. . .
No Hebrew, reading these words, would have been led to these idle and
fantastic conclusions about the super-human dignity of the Canaanite
prince.

[Nothing in Scripture
indicates that Melchizedek was a Canaanite prince. That's an eisegetical
conclusion which is used to reach the conclusion that Melchizedek could
not have been the preincarnate Christ]

Genesis
14 reveals several important facts concerning the identity of Melchizedek.
First, although Abraham regarded Melchizedek as a person of great
spiritual superiority, he did not in the context of Genesis 14 regard him
as God manifested in the person of the Son.

[This cannot be concluded
either way from an examination of Gen 14. Take another look. What is not
stipulated there cannot be read into the passage. It does not address
whether or not Abraham regarded Melchizedek as a person of great spiritual
superiority nor as God manifested in the person of the Son. Therefore you
cannot draw a conclusion about this either way. When the bible is silent
about something one has to remain silent.

[Gen 14:17-20]:

(v. 17) '''Then after his
return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him,
the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is,
the King's Valley.

(v. 18) And Melchizedek king
of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.

(v. 19) He blessed him and
said, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High , Possessor of heaven and
earth;

(v. 20) And blessed be God
Most High , Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." He gave
him a tenth of all.'''

Notice above what is not
addressed: what Abraham thought of Melchizekek except for the actions
which indicated Melchizedek was King of Salem who was a priest of God Most
High. Scripture here does not indicate Who he is either except to say that
he is king of Salem and priest of the most Holy God  it is silent on
the matter. ]

This is very
important for us to consider, since God the Son did appear and communicate
with Abraham on several other occasions. Having become familiar with these
appearances of God, it would seem that Abraham would have recognized
Melchizedek as God the Son had he been so.

Men and women to whom the
Angel of the LORD appeared did not recognize the preincarnate Son of God
as Angel of the LORD. More often than not the passage tells us that the
appearance was the LORD with some passages indicating that the person
being addressed by the LORD knew it was the LORD and some not. Some times
the Angel of the LORD appeared as a convincing messenger of God with no
particular stipulation in Scripture that the human being understood that
the individual speaking to him/her was indeed the preincarnate Son of God
of the LORD. Gen 16:13 is one place that Hagar acknowledges the Angel as
the Angel of the LORD, Gen 17:1 God appears before Abraham in some fashion
and announces Who He is. The Bible tells us Who He is, but this is not the
same thing as saying that the man/women the Angel was speaking to
understood that. In the absence of such explanation, one cannot assume
anything on this matter. Where the bible is silent, one must be silent. A
number of times God had His Word come in their consciousness to
Abraham and others rather than through the Angel of the LORD in an
appearance with voiced communication. Hence God works in a number of ways
that are not all in a consistent and predictable pattern wherein we can
make conclusions that God always works this way or that. And one
circumstance in how God operates and one reaction when He does, does not
dictate how every time such a similar occurrence must happen. Certainly we
must not box God in to the way we think He should operate. The key is
simply to take Scripture at what it says, drawing conclusions on the basis
of the normative use of language, context and logic and nothing more 
being silent on matters that the bible is silent on. Certainly the unique
appearance of Melchizedek is different from the appearances and
communications to Abraham and others of the Angel of the LORD or the LORD
in sufficient aspects not to demand that Scripture establish some kind of
rule by which the unique appearance of Melchizedek must be governed which
context is different from all the others ]

Each
time God the Son appears to Abraham, the Scriptures are very careful to
declare the true identity of the appearance.

[There is not a hard and
fast pattern by which we can override the context of a passage with some
unwritten, non-established rule. Majority text hermeneutics is more often
wrong than right  especially when it is coupled with arguments from
silence and is imposed on a context that is not identical; as is the case
here. ]

In
Genesis 15:1-2 we read:

After
these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying,
Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

And
Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and
the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

The
context reveals clearly that Abraham was addressing God Himself, Who
appeared to Abraham in the vision.

[Note that this was a vision
and Melchizedek was an actual appearance  a unique one at that,
dissimilar from the Angel of the LORD and LORD appearances and visions and
communications in that it was not a point of communicating something from
God to an individual but a priestly ceremony and tithing. The many
examples of the Angel of the LORDs appearances, visions,
communications were purposed as a direct communication with God. The
unique appearance of Melchizedek featured Abrahams voluntary offer
of tithes to a king and priest of the spoils of war and a ceremony re:
bread and wine which significance is not stipulated. Can we say absolutely
that this vision is an applicable parallel to dictate the context of
Genesis 14:18  the latter which was not a vision but an actual
appearance/existence by a combination of an majority rules all contexts
coupled with argument of silence even when the contexts of the majorities
dont all match??? ]

Certainly,
it makes one wonder why Melchizedek, if he were actually an appearance of
God the Son, did not tell Abraham these words in Genesis 14 when he
appeared to him. Is God absent-minded? Certainly not!

[Is Genesis 14:18 a complete
account? Obviously not. It is very sketchy. It does not address this issue
of Who Melchizedek was except that he was a king and a priest of the most
High God. Can we say from an argument of silence here that Melchizedek is
not the Son of God preincarnate on the basis of a vision in Gen 15:1-2
that indicates that the vision was from the LORD God???? Isn't that bad
hermeneutics??? ]

Further,
Genesis 18 records another visit by the Son of God to Abraham on the
Plains of Mamre. Abraham recognized Him as God, calling Him my Lord, and
not Melchizedek. If Melchizedek were actually a theophany, Abraham
certainly would have recognized him as such.

[There is not a single
passage in Scripture that supports this rule that all theophanies must be
recognized by the one being appeared to! ]

Secondly,
theophanies in human form were always temporary. Borland writes: Since
theophanies in human form were always quite temporary and fleeting, it
would be unusual for God to have visited Abram while posing as the king of
a Canaanite city. Besides, in none of the identifiable Christophanies was
the one who appeared connected in any permanent way with life on this
earth. (Christ in the Old Testament, James A. Borland, Moody Press, 1978).
Again, it is very important to note that Christ in the human-form
theophanies never performed a religious or related ceremony

[The passages about
Melchizedek do not address how long he was on the earth. Nor does the
Bible restrict how theophanies must operate or their length of operation.
Furthermore, there is no such hard and fast rule that says theophanies
must only be temporary whatever that means: 1 day, 1 hour, 1 year, 20
years???? There is also nothing to say that Melchizedek was only there
temporarily]

Borland
writes again: . . . Melchizedek was titled priest of the most high God and
brought bread and wine, the elements of a completed sacrifice, while he
pronounced a blessing upon Abraham. These facts clearly reveal that the
Melchizedek of Gene- sis 14 was not an actual appearance of Jesus Christ
in human form.

[The bread and wine were not
so stipulated as the elements of a completed sacrifice. The bible is
silent on the significance of the bread and wine in this particular
passage. On the other hand, had it been a symbol of our Lords
sacrifice in His humanity, it would not have prevented Jesus Christ in His
humanity from performing such sacrifice, would it? That is reading that
into the text. No such conclusion can be made that because of Melchizedeks
bringing bread and wine that excludes him from being Jesus Christ in
preincarnate human form performing the sacrifice at Calvary for the sins
of the whole world. There is no such rule in Scripture]

HIS
IDENTITY REVEALED: REVEALED IN HEBREWS 7

Since
the New Testament supplements or completes the Old Testament, a great deal
of light can be gleaned from Hebrews chapters six and seven. There are
several important facts in Hebrews six and seven which prove that
Melchizedek was not a preincarnate appearance of Christ in human form.

Preceding
the short description of Melchizedek in Hebrews seven, there is a brief
introduction to the mysterious person in the last four verses of chapter
six, which read as follows:

Wherein
God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the
immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: that by two
immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have
a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope
set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and
stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the
forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever
after the order of Melchizedek.

Carver
writes about this verse: The statement says Jesus entered into the veil
under the authority of His work of the cross, through this work having
become forever a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. The
statement is that our Lord Jesus became a High Priest forever after the
order of Melchezedek through His sacrificial death on the cross. If He
were the Melchizedek of history, then He would not have become a High
Priest through the work of the cross. He would have already been a High
Priest forever after His own order. In the endless ages of eternity past,
Christ was already prophet, priest, and king. However, as far as the
salvation of the believer is concerned, Christ became our great High
Priest when He offered Himself upon the cross as our sacrifice for sin. In
doing this, He was both priest and sacrifice. If Christ were the
Melchizedek of Genesis 14, this principle would not be true.

[The preincarnate
appearances and actions of the LORD before He added to Himself humanity do
not conflict with His appearance on the earth when He added to Himself
humanity. None of the passages that have Melchizedek in them address his
work as priest would have something directly or symbolic to do with the
sacrifice on the cross at Calvary although that may have been the case
symbolically. But the bible is silent on this so we must be silent,
drawing no definitive conclusions. Note that our LORD in His alleged
appearance as Melchizedek was not yet in His humanity. The priestly
rituals could also be symbolic of Calvary and not effect our Lords
actual work on the cross! Our LORDs alleged appearance as
Melchizedek is not the same thing as His incarnate appearance as the One
to go to the cross at Calvary in His humanity. ]

The second
thing to notice is the word Sorder used several times in Hebrews 5-7 (5:6,
10; 7:11, 17, 21). The word translated order is taxis, meaning
arrangement, office, rank, or group. The fact that Christ is a priest
after the order of Melchizedek clearly makes a distinction between the
two. How could Christ be a priest after the order of Melchizedek if He
were Melchizedek?

[Yes. The difference is
between His preincarnate appearance as LORD and His appearances on the
earth after He added to Himself humanity. ]

The third
thing to notice is the word order of king and Priest in Hebrews 7:1.
Melchizedek is King-Priest, whereas the chronological order for Christ is
Priest-King. Christ has not been crowned king of any earthly domain as
yet. This is to be a fulfilment of prophecy.

[I wouldnt read too
much into the order of these two words. Scripture is silent on the
significance of the order in which these two words appear. One cannot take
the king then priest order in Heb 7:1 as a chronological fulfillment of
prophecy. For one refers allegedly to the preincarnate Christ and the
other which is prophesized to Christs incarnation. Two different
contexts. ]

Fourth, the
words made like unto are very important for us to notice (7:3). Of course,
these words mean similar to or a type of. Borland says that â¬Sit
would be foolish to say Melchizedek was made like Christ, if indeed he
were Christ.

[Why not? BTW, the word foolish
here is out of line. Thats a legitimate use of the Word. If
Melchizedek is the pre incarnate Son of God on the earth certainly He is
like the Son of God, because He is the Son of God. Notice it is
declaring something about the priesthood: it consists of One who is like
the Son of God. If He is the Son of God this would certainly be true and a
legitimate way of expressing it! ]

Fifth, the
argument that Melchizedek had no genealogy is denied in the context of
Scripture. Verse six clearly declares that Melchizedek did have a
genealogy when it speaks of he whose descent (genealogy).

[Let's take a look at the
words]:

[Heb 7:1-3]:

(v. 1) This Melchizedek was
king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from
the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2

(v. 2) and Abraham gave him
a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness";
then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace."

(v. 3) Without father or
mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like
the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

Verse 3 in the Greek
stipulates that Melchizedek is without father, without mother,
without genealogy, neither beginning of days nor of end of life, like the
Son of God remains a priest forever:

Furthermore,
Christ does have a recorded genealogy and a human mother, which would
disqualify Him from being the Melchizedek of Genesis 14.

[Not so. We are looking at
Melchizedek as Christs preincarnate appearance in His eternal
existence like the Son of God Who is eternal without beginning or end
without genealogy vs the incarnate man like the Son of God who has a
genealogy. So God the Son has no genealogy in His diety but in His
humanity He does. ]

Melchizedek
is said to be without father, without mother. Without genealogy simply
means that Melchizedeks genealogy is not given.

[Melchizedek is said to be
without father, without mother, without genealogy simply means He is
without father, without mother, without genealogy. There is no way one
could say this means his genealogy is not given which conveys the idea
that he has a genealogy but it is not given here in the passage???? The
verse says he is without genealogy. You cannot say then that he has one
which then would say that he has a mother and a father. ]

Sixth,
Melchizedek did have a father and a mother because verse four says that he
was a man. Melchizedek was a temporal man.

[A preincarnate appearance
as a man does not demand a father and a mother. It does not say he was a
temporal man either. It says he is without beginning of days or end of
life. That is hardly temporal.]

Seventh,
Christ could not have been Melchizedek and still been better than
Melchizedek (7:22). Certainly, Christ could not be better than Himself.
Part of the argument of Hebrews would be destroyed if such were the case.

[Christ in His humanity
completed His mission which Melchizedek  Christ in His preincarnate
appearance symbolically represented. In this sense the former is greater
than the latter just as the reality is greater than the symbol. ]

Eighth,
verses 15-16 say that after the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth
another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment,
but after the power of an endless life. There is a one word in particular
that we need to notice: the word similitude. This word declares that
Christ is similar to or a type of Melchizedek. Christ is the another
priest. . . after the power of an endless life. Such would not be the case
if he were Melchizedek.

[Heb 7:15-17]:

(Heb 7:15) "And what we
have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,

(Heb 7:16) one who has
become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on
the basis of the power of an indestructible life

(Heb 7:17) For it is
declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

Notice that Christ in His
preincarnate appearance could certainly appear as Mechizedek Who is
stipulated as without beginning or end like the Son of God  eternal
and indestructible and then another priest of the order of Melchizedek:
Christ in His Humanity appears on the basis of the power of an
indestructible life, i.e., His resurrection Life in His Humanity.]

Thus,
Melchizedek was not a Christophany. All the evidence points to the fact
that he was a mere man who was a perfect type of the Lord Jesus Christ in
His priesthood. Carver writes: We conclude that Melchizedek was not a
theophany of the preincarnate Christ. He was not a supernatural being at
all. He was a man; and because of the absence of any genealogical records
concerning him, God has made him a marvelous type of our Lord Jesus
Christ, both in his kingship and in his priesthood.

[Not so. It is indeed
plausible that Melchizedek was the preincarnate Christ and is the
resurrected Christ. One who is without beginning and without
end, without genealogy, a priest and king of
an order beyond the capacity of finite man, like theSon of
God, priest forever = only God can be all those things: The
Son of God preincarnate and the Son of God incarnate]